Categorie: Issue

The G7,which was originally a meeting-place for the Western leaders to better understand their respective points of view, has now become a communication platform. Far from sharing their opinions in private, the guests have become actors in a media show in which each of them tries to deliver a convincing performance. The worst moment of this G7 was the surprise concocted by Emmanuel Macron for the journalists, and against his US guest.

A club, not a decision-making organisation

At the moment of its creation in 1976 by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, the G-6 was a group for informal discussion. The French President and the German Chancellor wanted to exchange with their counterparts in order to understand their thoughts in the context of the dollar crisis which occurred at the end of the Vietnam war. It was not intended for making decisions, but thinking about the future of the Western economy. The guests were the same as those who had been invited by the US Treasury a little earlier, for the same reason. However, on this occasion, the meeting did not unite the Ministries of Finance, but the heads of State or government, to which Italy was added. The following year, Canada was also invited.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the division of the world into two camps, the G-7 began to look at political questions, then associated Russia with these informal discussions. But when Moscow rose again and opposed NATO in Syria, and refused the coup d’etat in Ukraine, trust was broken, and the Western powers decided to meet together as before. This episode shut down any desire to admit the participation of China.

The most recent G-7 meetings have produced a quantity of Declarations and Communiqués. This literature has formalised no decision, but has elaborated a common vocabulary which was all the more verbose since US internal policy was dominated by the « politically correct ». As always when one is unsure of having any counter-powers, the separation between reality and this discourse has grown increasingly.

A deviation occurred in 2005 in the United Kingdom, when Prime Minister Tony Blair attracted everyone’s attention by assuring that the G8 which he was presiding intended to cancel the debt of the 18 poorest countries in Africa.

The citizens of the European Union are called to vote this week for the European Parliament. It is not a real parliament, and it lacks prospects for becoming one, since all important decisions are taken by the unelected heads of the European Commission and the European Central Bank, dubbed “the worst-run Central Bank in the world”.

These elections capture however the general mood of exasperation with current policies. Conservative and extreme Right parties will rise, reflecting widespread scepticism as to the economic course of the EU and its lack of benefits for the common people. The mainstream Left unfortunately neglects these issues, and it will pay the price.

The conservatives generally blame the weak and scapegoat the refugees, the immigrants, the women, and the poor, while promising to save the middle class from the onslaught of big capital. They create false hopes of easy reform, and they never denounce the exploitation inherent in today’s system. History shows however that small owners manage to resist financial stranglehold only when they make common cause with workers and the poor, and they are not afraid to fight.

The economy looks ever more frail. In all, the Eurozone’s nominal GDP stagnates, shrinking 12% in its six largest economies in 2008-2017. The European Union remains indifferent to the peoples’ needs, while it caters for every whim of the corporations. Even so, Quantitative Easing and other crony capitalist schemes promoted by the ECB, such as the Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) or the new Targeted Long-term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO-III) cannot save the day.

Donald Trump declares bluntly “I don’t care about Europe”, showing that US considers our continent as little more than a collection of vassal states. In all countries inequality rises, corporations rule, and oligarchs impose their will. Liberal France exhibits an abhorrent authoritarianism against the Yellow Vests. Italy chases the refugees and the Roma. Workers’ rights and incomes are eroded everywhere, with women workers hit particularly hard. Even in successful countries, such as Germany, real wages remain below their 1990 level.

Wherever I look at US policy, foreign or domestic, I see only insanity, ignorance, and incompetence.

Take the issue of tariffs, which is Trump’s mistaken approach to bringing the jobs back home. The tariff “solution” overlooks that offshored US production counts as imports when US firms bring their goods into the US to be marketed.

The Chinese did not steal American jobs by selling below US cost. The jobs were taken to China by US global corporations, along with the technology and business know-how, for the sole reason of maximizing US corporate profits. Labor, made as productive as US labor by offshored US capital, technology, and business know-how, could be hired at much less cost in China and elsewhere in Asia due to the enormous excess supply of labor that overhangs Asian labor markets. The enormous cost savings went directly into US corporate profits, capital gains for shareholders, and bonuses for executives. Half and perhaps more of the “cheap goods” imported from China are the goods of American firms, such as Apple, Levi, Nike. They are products of US firms that are made in China for sale in the US. They are not “cheap Chinese goods.” Do you think an iPhone is cheap or a MacBookPro is cheap?

The tariffs fall on American goods produced offshore by American firms for sale in America. The tariffs will reduce the profits of American overseas production and raise prices to US consumers, who have already lost the incomes from the manufacturing jobs that American companies moved abroad.

In other words, tariffs are not a solution.

The only way to bring home the offshored American jobs is to change the way US corporations are taxed. No, this does not mean to lower corporate taxes. The way to bring the jobs home is to tax corporations on the basis of the geographical location in which they add value to their products. If US corporations produce in the 50 states for their US market, the tax rate would be low. If they produce abroad in China or elsewhere for sale in the US, the tax rate would be high.

The tax rate on offshored production for US markets would be calculated to offset the lower labor and regulatory costs abroad.

In a recent article published on the India-based News18 site (CNN), prominent US biologist Nina Federoff was reported as saying it is time for India to grant farmers access to genetically modified (GM) crops. In an interview with the site, she says there is no evidence that GM crops are dangerous when consumed either by people in food or by animals in feed. Federoff says that the commercial release of various GM crops in India has been halted by the Indian government due to opposition from environmental activists.

She adds that we are rapidly moving out of the climate regime in which our primary crops were domesticated, arguing that that they do increasingly worse and will yield less as temperature extremes become common and pest and pathogen populations change. She says GM will become more or less essential in an era of climate change.

In recent weeks, aside from Federoff’s intervention, GM has been a hot topic in India. In late November, a paper appeared in the journal Current Science which argues that India doesn’t need GM crops and that the track record of GM agriculture is highly questionable. The paper is notable not just because of what it says but because of who is saying it: distinguished scientist P.C. Kesavan and M.S. Swaminathan, renowned agricultural scientist and geneticist and widely regarded as the father of the Green Revolution in India.

I recently spoke with prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues about developments surrounding the GM issue in India, particularly the views of Federoff. Rodrigues is lead petitioner in a case before India’s Supreme Court that is seeking a moratorium on GM crops and selective bans.

Colin Todhunter: What do you make of Nina Federoff’s recent comments advocating for GM in India?

Aruna Rodrigues: Nina Federoff is a long-time supporter of GMOs. The last time she offered advice to India (in her role as scientific advisor to Hilary Clinton) was when Bt brinjal (eggplant) was being pushed for commercialisation. She advised that Bt brinjal would be good for India!

CT: She is a high-profile scientist. Did government officials take her advice?

AR: Her advice was straightforwardly ignored by the then Minister of the Ministry of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh.

In a recent article published on the India-based News18 site (CNN), prominent US biologist Nina Federoff was reported as saying it is time for India to grant farmers access to genetically modified (GM) crops. In an interview with the site, she says there is no evidence that GM crops are dangerous when consumed either by people in food or by animals in feed. Federoff says that the commercial release of various GM crops in India has been halted by the Indian government due to opposition from environmental activists.

She adds that we are rapidly moving out of the climate regime in which our primary crops were domesticated, arguing that that they do increasingly worse and will yield less as temperature extremes become common and pest and pathogen populations change. She says GM will become more or less essential in an era of climate change.

In recent weeks, aside from Federoff’s intervention, GM has been a hot topic in India. In late November, a paper appeared in the journal Current Science which argues that India doesn’t need GM crops and that the track record of GM agriculture is highly questionable. The paper is notable not just because of what it says but because of who is saying it: distinguished scientist P.C. Kesavan and M.S. Swaminathan, renowned agricultural scientist and geneticist and widely regarded as the father of the Green Revolution in India.

I recently spoke with prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues about developments surrounding the GM issue in India, particularly the views of Federoff. Rodrigues is lead petitioner in a case before India’s Supreme Court that is seeking a moratorium on GM crops and selective bans.

CT: What do you make of Nina Federoff’s recent comments advocating for GM in India?

AR: Nina Federoff is a long-time supporter of GMOs. The last time she offered advice to India (in her role as scientific advisor to Hilary Clinton) was when Bt brinjal (eggplant) was being pushed for commercialisation. She advised that Bt brinjal would be good for India!

CT: She is a high-profile scientist. Did government officials take her advice?

AR: Her advice was straightforwardly ignored by the then Minister of the Ministry of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh.

Don’t tell me the issue is mental health. Save the nonsense about “good guys” with weapons somehow being the answer. The truth is this: There would have been no tragic shooting Wednesday in Parkland, Florida, if a troubled young man had not gotten his hands on a military-style assault rifle and as much ammunition as he wanted.

Many people knew that Nikolas Cruz was troubled, violent and liable to explode. Yet nothing kept him from acquiring the gun he allegedly used to kill 17 students and faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in yet another senseless slaughter of the kind that still shocks but no longer surprises.

” and vowing to “tackle the difficult issue of mental health.” But he made no mention of gun control—meaning he might as well have said nothing at all.

According to news reports in The Washington Post and other outlets, Cruz, 19, had been repeatedly suspended and then expelled from the high school for disciplinary problems. He had sought and received treatment at a mental health clinic, but stopped attending. He showed signs of depression. His posts on social media were so unsettling that they scared acquaintances away. His father died several years ago and his mother, with whom he was close, passed away around Thanksgiving. According to The Associated Press, he had joined a white nationalist group.

And he had a fetish for guns.

To say there were warning signs about Cruz is a gross understatement. There were flashing red lights and blaring sirens.

“I think everyone in this school had it in the back of their mind that if anyone was supposed to do it, it was most likely going to be him,” a former classmate told the Post—“do it” meaning the kind of homicidal rampage we saw Wednesday. A math teacher at the school told the Miami Herald that Cruz had threatened students before being expelled, and that “he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him.”

It was obvious that a tragedy might be coming. Yet, as a society, we refused to take the steps that could have prevented it.

Russia and Putin are controlled by Western bankers. The Russians are not in Syria to defend Syrian or Kurdish or Turkish or even RUSSIAN interests.

Putin himself is an anglozionist.

Putin and his oligarch collaborators are propping up the anglozionist regime by BACKING the anglozionist DOLLAR with Russian oil and gas, and Russian international arms sales, all of which are conducted and transacted in anglozionist dollars.

It is disingenuous to claim that the Russians are doing all that they can to stop the Americans or the Israelis under the circumstances. Putin can STOP the Israelis and the Americans without firing a single bullet let alone an S-400 rocket, simply by repudiating the DOLLAR. STOP selling valuable Russian oil and gas for anglozionist dollars. The Russians just sold Russian gas to the Americans CHEAPER than the Americans themselves produce it for, in America: http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/01/sanctions-galore-unless-we-need-you.ht…

The dollar is WORTHLESS and ILLEGAL according to the Constitution of the United States itself! All Putin and the Russians have to do is, cite the US Constitution and pull the plug on the economic foundation of the the anglozionist MIC by publicly acquiescing the ILLEGALITY of the FRNs a.k.a the US dollar.

NO ONE is going to fire nukes in anger to Russia for the “crime” of respecting the US Constitution, as some disingenuous trolls are suggesting!

Yes, Why does Putin keep supporting America and Israel if he’s not a zionist? Why does the Russian government give away Russian natural resources and Russian arms essentially for free (I.e. against illegal thus worthless dollars) when it can turn off the economic spigot that feeds the anglozionist Beast?

The Russian central bank has been owned and controlled by the City of London banking establishment since the creation of the new Russian Constitution under Yeltsin. The Russians are forbidden to issue their own currency the rouble without permission from Western bankers, and the Russians can only buy US Treasuries with the dollars they get for their oil, not gold. There are more American dollar assets than Russian rouble-denominated wealth in Russia: